The 2 most feasible reasons (in my mind at least) seem to me: a. to disarm the general populace therefore reducing resistance (or easy resistance) against tyranny b. because it is an easy 'feel good' topic for them to sway ignorant voters with Now looking at "a", it seems to be the underlying reason for many government's disarming their populace. However, is it really believable that Joe Senator thinks there is ever a chance of himself and his peers being some sort of "ruling class"? Regardless of how destructive their tactics and lawmaking decisions can be on our personal freedoms, I just don't know if I can buy that that many politicians are on a powertrip. Now I've met a few, and let me say I was NOT impressed. This was about a decade back and I was in middle-school. I remember being nauseated at a discussion I had with a Maryland senator about gun control... I was a 14 year old and I knew VASTLY more than he did about gun laws. But he was a nice gentleman and seemed sincere (though misguided), I don't think he wanted to change our goverment's power or situation. Now "b" seems more feasible. But are there not many more topics that would get the majority behind them? Whether you agree with them or not: -healthcare -medicaid -welfare -helping the lower class get out of their slump (there are valid programs that help instead of rewarding them for staying poor like our current federal welfare program) -rising cost of living and inflation -illegal immigration And those topics are off the top of my head... I would think that more of the "general population" care about those topics than firearms laws. Even the liberals that I know don't seem to have an opinion on guns one way or another except that "they're bad", I think that if gun control was kept out of the limelight for a year or so they would forget the topic existed! So why do they do it, is it more of a lucrative topic than I'm seeing? Or is it really a plan to turn us into a Socialist regime?